ASSADULLAH ALLIE,SRINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I. T. A. No. 142/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Assadullah Allie, vs. Income Tax Officer, Green Avenue, Ward 3(1), Srinagar Sector 1st Hyderpora, Srinagar [PAN: ADFPA 8001P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 06.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 07.03.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee arising out of the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Jammu (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 24.12.2014, partly allowing the assessee’s appeal contesting his assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide order dated 25.03.2013 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.

2 ITA No. 142/Asr/2015 (AY 2010-11) Assadullah Allie v. ITO adjourned in the interest of justice, so as to comply with the principle of audi alteram partem. Sh. P.N. Arora, Advocate, in whose favour vakalatnama stands issued and who had, accordingly, made appearances in this case in the past, who happened to be sitting in the court room at the time, was, accordingly inquired with in the matter. He reiterated what he had earlier stated per his letter dated 19/11/2018 (copy on record), i.e., that he being unable to establish contact with his client, the assessee, notice of hearing be sent directly thereto at the Srinagar address. And which was accordingly done after confirming the address, which is the same as mentioned in Form 36 (as well as the assessment and the appellate order). It was explained to him that the appeal is liable to be dismissed in default and, further, being a recalled matter, not likely to be restored, so that he may seek a short adjournment to prepare the case, and which date shall though be final. He was required to make a written request in this respect, also specifying the date convenient to him (in the month of March, 2019) before rising of the Bench for the day. No such request made by him even up to the close of the date. The appeal was accordingly taken as heard.

3 ITA No. 142/Asr/2015 (AY 2010-11) Assadullah Allie v. ITO 9142-9144 of 2010 & CA No.6156/2012, dated 07.2.2019 (copy on record), dismissed the appeals in limine rejecting the application seeking adjournment on the ground that the counsel was not present in the Court but statedly out of station. The Apex Court while dismissing the appeals made it clear that it would not restore the appeals. As afore-stated, there is no adjournment application in the instant case, with the assessee not responding to his counsel, much less contact him and brief him in the matter. The ld. CIT(A), the first appellate authority, before whom there was representation, has upon due consideration allowed part relief to the assessee. The appeal in the instant case is also time barred by 13 days. Under the circumstances, I am constrained to dismiss the assessee’s appeal in limine as un-admitted and, in any case, for want of prosecution. I decide accordingly.